Re: dfa.c order of include problem

[Aharon Robbins]

The last I'll say on this...

> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:31:52 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> To: Aharon Robbins <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: dfa.c order of include problem
>
> On 01/31/13 12:24, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> >> Glibc <regex.h> does not have the problem,
> > How is that so?  The undef of RE_DUP_MAX and redefine is there.
> > If limits.h is included after regex.h, then the value from limits.h
> > is applied.
>
> But in Glibc the two definitions are equivalent (identical preprocessor
> token lists), so it's valid C and there's no problem.

You've missed the point.  Using the glibc regex.h on a non-GLIBC system
where limits.h is included after regex.h does not solve anything.

That is the issue I am working around with the change I suggested to
dfa.c.

Thanks,

Arnold